The Romney campaign is
making a major effort to reach out to the Tea Party, grassroots
conservative activists, and Ron Paul’s libertarian supporters.
They’ve not only invited Rand
Paul to speak at the Tampa convention, they’ve
also scheduled a “Tribute to Ron Paul” video to be shown
to the delegates. However, these are mere crumbs: the video is not
likely to highlight Paul’s more interesting
positions, such as his vociferous opposition to the American empire
and its endless wars.

No, the real cake,
complete with quasi-“libertarian” frosting, is Paul
Ryan, whose addition to the ticket opens up the prospect of having
Ayn Rand, the late novelist and philosopher of “Objectivism,”
become a campaign
issue. I can’t wait for someone to accuse the
Republicans of endorsing “terrorism” on the grounds that
The Fountainhead, Rand’s best-selling 1943 novel,
climaxes with the hero blowing up a home for mentally challenged
orphans. Oh
wait …

That some
“libertarians” are ready, willing, and able to swallow
this guff, I have no doubt. They claim Ryan “gets
the free market.” Well, whoop-de-doo! So does
the Chinese Communist party, these
days.

However, he doesn’t
really “get it” at all, not even to the extent that the
heirs of Deng Xiaoping do, because he thinks we can still have an
overseas empire and a “limited” government, with low
taxes and “free” enterprise. The Chicoms — to use
right-wing Republican phraseology — are “isolationists,”
i.e. their foreign policy amounts to minding their own business and
making as much money as possible. Ryan, on the other hand, is all
about maintaining “American leadership” in the world,
and the way he tells it, “leadership” is a polite
euphemism for domination.

In
a speech before the Alexander Hamilton Society —
where else? — Ryan gave full-throated expression to what
American foreign policy would look like under his watch, and while
the vice-presidency is an office with little power, from the tone of
the speech the office of the Vice President in a Republican
administration would once
again become a nest of neocons lobbying for more and
bigger wars.

Ryan may be a neocon
drone, but he’s no Dan Quayle: he realizes, as he put it in
his talk to the Hamiltonians, that “our fiscal
policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course; and if we
fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing
decline as a world power.”

Translation:
we can’t have an empire, given our present financial straits.
So what’s the solution? To any normal American, who never
wanted an empire to begin with, the answer is simple: give up the
imperial pretensions to “global leadership,” and tend to
our own ill-used and leached-out garden. Ryan, however, is a
creature of Washington, and this is unthinkable inside the Beltway:
it would be a most grievous blow to the self-esteem of these
worthies if they had to exchange the imperial purple for a plain
republican cloth coat. Why, no Serious Person would even suggest
such a thing! So instead of stating the facts, he makes up some of
his own:

“Our
fiscal crisis is above all a spending crisis that is being driven by
the growth of our major entitlement programs: Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid. In 1970, these programs consumed about 20
percent of the budget. Today that number has grown to over 40
percent.

“Over
the same period, defense spending has shrunk as a share of the
federal budget from about 39 percent to just under 16 percent —
even as we conduct an ambitious global war on terrorism. The fact
is, defense consumes a smaller share of the national economy today
than it did throughout the Cold War.”

“Ryan is
wrong — and misleading — when he argues that defense
spending is shrinking. He says that defense as a percentage of GDP
has declined from its ‘Cold War average of 7.5 percent to 4.6
percent today.’ What he doesn’t say is that this share
is up from the 1990s. Defense spending ranged between 3 percent and
3.4 percent of GDP from 1996 to 2001, according to budget data
from the Office of Management and Budget. Likewise, while Ryan says
that such spending as a percentage of all federal outlays is down
from 25 percent three decades ago to 20 percent today, he doesn’t
mention that defense spending constituted just 16 percent of federal
outlays in 1999.”

The
infamous Ryan budget wants to raise military spending and declares
any cuts off limits because, don’t you know, it’s a
“strategic” matter, and not a question of
dollars-and-cents. But what is this grand “strategic”
vision he wants to throw money at?

“Decline
is a choice,” avers Ryan, citing neocon oracle Charles
Krauthammer, but he never defines his terms, only implies their
meaning. What is “decline”? To Ryan, the supposed free
market fundamentalist, it has little to do with economics, but is
essentially measured by military power. He excoriates Britain for
“ceding leadership of the Western world to the United States”
at “the turn of the century.” Yet the Brits, exhausted
by decades of taking up the “white man’s burden,”
had no choice but to pull back: the alternative was to pour money
and lives into fighting insurgent peoples from India to Africa and
the Far East.

Does Ryan
really believe the Brits should’ve held on to India in spite
of Gandhi’s heroic struggle for independence? Try explaining
that one to the Indian Ambassador, Mr. Vice President.

Yes, Ryan
is right when he declares that “the unsustainable trajectory
of government spending is accelerating the nation toward the most
predictable economic crisis in American history.” What was
even more predictable, however, is the response of our elites, who
refuse to even scale down, never mind abandon, their grandiose
visions of a world-spanning hegemony, because they are ideologically
and most important of all emotionally invested in the imperial
project. They like comparing themselves to the lords and ladies of
the former British empire, and indeed in Washington we have all the
pomp and circumstance except for the hereditary titles.

Ryan
claims “years of ignoring the real drivers of our debt have
left us with a profound structural problem,” and to him this
means throwing grandmothers out in the street rather than cut one
dime from billions going to Lockheed. The “Ryan budget,”
endorsed by House Republicans, would cancel planned cuts in the
growth rate of military appropriations, and increase the Pentagon’s
budget by $20 billion. He’s right that the trajectory of our
debt-to-income ratio is “catastrophic,” yet is patently
dishonest in describing what or who is driving us over a fiscal
cliff.

I
might add that the figures Ryan cites omit the costs of the Iraq,
Afghan, and other wars, effectively disappearing $1.4
trillion in debt
accrued since 9/11, as Callahan points out. Another dishonest
sleight-of-hand from the man who recommends Atlas
Shrugged
to all his new staff hires. Perhaps Ryan has forgotten one
of the key passages
of that novel, where the hero describes what Rand considered to be
the virtue of honesty:

“Honesty is
the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have
no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained
by fraud—that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind
of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher
than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of
their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence,
their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have
to dread and flee.”

Ryan
had better start fleeing now, and get a head start, because it’s
going to be a very long
campaign season.

Standing
before the Alexander Hamilton Society and declaring that the US was
“unfortunately,” at the turn of the last century , “not
yet ready to assume the burden of leadership” from our British
big brothers smacks of treason when one considers Hamilton wanted
a king,
and, by 1790, had become a British
agent.
Ryan moans that our refusal to assume the reins of empire resulted
in “40 years of Great Power rivalry and two World Wars” — as if the Americans are to blame for the assassination
of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the spark
that set that 40-year conflagration to burning! It was a wildfire
that would never have touched American shores if not for the strenuous
efforts of America’s Hamiltonians to drag us into Europe’s
wars. Ayn Rand, Ryan’s literary idol, understood this, which
is why she opposed
US entry into World War II, and bitterly denounced the Vietnam war.

Ah, but
“the stakes are even higher today, says Ryan:

“Unlike
Britain, which handed leadership to a power that shared its
fundamental values, today’s most dynamic and growing powers do
not embrace the basic principles that should be at the core of the
international system. A world without U.S. leadership will be a more
chaotic place, a place where we have less influence, and a place
where our citizens face more dangers and fewer opportunities. Take a
moment and imagine a world led by China or by Russia.”

It is
doubtful the Russians or the Chinese have the either the desire or
the capacity to “lead the world” — a grandiose
concept that seems to have originated with those who believe
civilization would literally go to pieces without the beneficent
direction of the right Anglo-Saxon aristocrats.

To
Ryan, giving up this hereditary right to world hegemony amounts to
accepting “decline,” a choice which “would have
consequences that I doubt many Americans would be comfortable with.”
Again, the facts burst Ryan’s fanciful ideological balloon:
as Ezra Klein points
out,
Republicans as well as Democrats, when presented with the actual
budget breakdown, favor on average an 18 percent cut in military
spending.

Heedless
of either facts or figures, Ryan barrels on ahead, his inflated
rhetoric ascending to the higher realms of moral philosophy and
political theory:

“So
we must lead. And a central element of maintaining American
leadership is the promotion of our moral principles —
consistently and energetically — without being unrealistic
about what is possible for us to achieve. America is an idea.”

Without
even getting into what, exactly, this Grand Idea is all about, one
has to ask: how can an entire nation possibly be reduced to a
floating abstraction? Any nation with a history longer than fifteen
minutes is already marked by the passage of time, during which the
original intent — or Idea — is revised, if ever so slightly,
in response to new circumstances. We have seen that in our own
history, and yet Ryan is blind to this obvious fact because his view
is essentially rationalistic and anti-historical.

A
nation cannot be a mere idea for the simple reason that America,
like all other countries, is a place;
in our case, one with vast plains, fertile valleys, burning deserts, towering
mountains, and two long coastlines fronting two oceans separating it
from the ire and intrigues of foreign princes — a place which,
at
the time
of the Founding, was a sparsely populated and incredibly rich
wilderness relatively free of European exploitation. It wasn’t
settled by ideas, but by people — real live actual human beings, some of whom were the bearers
of certain concepts which had a catalyzing effect on the course of
American history. What’s interesting is that Ryan fails to
mention the primary
idea that motivated the American colonists, which was opposition
to foreign domination
and the legitimacy of the British monarch. Even Hamilton, who wanted
to place a crown on George Washington’s head, embraced the
essential spirit of the American Revolution, which if it can be
called anything was certainly anti-imperialist.
Indeed,
it was the Founding Fathers who warned
us
not to go abroad “in search of monsters to destroy,” and
explicitly opposed
the export of our revolution in the French style. Apparently the
neo-Hamiltonians have surpassed even the treason of their idol.

From
these soaring heights of philosophical expostulation, Ryan executes
a rather bumpy landing into the lower planes of actual policy, but
not before enunciating an axiom most puzzling:

“There
are very good people who are uncomfortable with the idea that
America is an ‘exceptional’ nation. But it happens that
America was the first in the world to make the universal principle
of human freedom into a “credo,” a commitment to all
mankind, and it has been our honor to be freedom’s beacon for
millions around the world.”

Where
in the Constitution or in the other founding documents of our
country is it written that we have “a commitment to all
mankind”? A commitment to do what?
It only gets crazier as Ryan continues building the fantastical
structure of his argument. The result is a monument to the
intellectual emptiness of the America-is-an-idea bromide pushed by neoconservatives like that old
bore
Ben Wattenberg. “America’s ‘exceptionalism,’”
avers Ryan, “is just this”:

“While
most nations at most times have claimed their own history or culture
to be exclusive, America’s foundations are not our own —
they belong equally to every person everywhere. The truth that all
human beings are created equal in their natural rights is the most
‘inclusive’ social truth ever discovered as a foundation
for a free society. ‘All’ means ‘all’! You
can’t get more ‘inclusive’ than that!”

Or more
contradictory. For if America is “exceptional,” along
with Americans, then how is it we’re just like everybody else
on earth? If our exceptionality doesn’t belong exclusively to
us, we cease being exceptional. Perhaps we can forgive Ryan
this lapse into complete incoherence: after all, we don’t
expect our rulers to be philosopher kings, even if that’s how
they see themselves. All this abstract theorizing, which no one
takes seriously, is meant to get him to a the point where he can argue the following:

“Now,
if you believe these rights are universal human rights, then that
clearly forms the basis of your views on foreign policy. It leads
you to reject moral relativism. It causes you to recoil at the idea
of persistent moral indifference toward any nation that stifles and
denies liberty, no matter how friendly and accommodating its rulers
are to American interests.”

Such
a dizzying leap of logic leaves the listener breathless, and
somewhat disoriented: Ryan doesn’t tell us why
recognizing the universality of “human rights” ought
“clearly” to form the “basis” of one’s
foreign policy views. A foreign policy is not a moral philosophy,
which Ryan seems to belatedly recognize by citing the “tension
between morality and reality.” How he resolves that “tension”
is particularly interesting.

Giving
the example of the Saudis — “with whom we share many
interests” — he notes the “sharp divide between the
principles around which they have organized their state and the
principles that guide the United States.” His recommendation:
“ We should help our allies effect a transition that fulfills
the aspirations of their people.” He supposedly “hears
voices within the Kingdom” calling for “reform,”
however “in Syria and Iran,” he says, “we are
witnessing regimes that have chosen the opposite path.” In
that case, we ought to give full-throated denunciations of “the
jack-booted thugs of Syria and Iran.”

Our
principles, Ryan declares, must be “tempered by a healthy
humility about the extent of our power to control events in other
regions,” but isn’t it funny how “humility”
always come into play when the petro-tyrants of the Kingdom are
concerned, yet plays no role in our relations with Syria or Iran?
This policy of selective humility is highly convenient for Ryan,
because it enables him to align himself with whatever powerful lobby
is pushing for war — or a policy of complicity in repression.

For
all his calls for “consistency” and “morality,”
Ryan is just another cynical self-aggrandizing opportunist, whose
“principles” consist of appeasing the military
industrial complex, the Israel lobby, and the neoconservatives, who
have been “briefing”
him on the Party Line. If he is the “intellectual
leader”
of the Republican party, then it is time for the GOP to declare
intellectual bankruptcy.

Speaking
of bankruptcy, albeit not of the conceptual variety: you may have
noticed that our seasonal fundraising drive begins today — and bankrupt we’ll be if we don’t
raise $80,000 in the next few weeks. After seventeen years of
fighting the War Party, we’ve witnessed tremendous gains in
making opposition to imperialism part of the national conversation.
Our writers and analyses have injected anti-interventionist ideas
into the “mainstream” — but none of it is possible
without your support.

We
don’t engage in partisan politics: our support comes from both
sides of the political spectrum and all points in between. Yes, this
site was founded by libertarians, but we act in concert with a
growing coalition of progressives and conservatives who say it’s
time for America to come home again and stop trying to “lead”
rule the world.
With
another war — or two — shaping up in the Middle East, we
need your financial support more than ever. War propaganda is
flooding the airwaves, and the internet, and there’s just one
way to fight back: by getting the truth out there. Help us shape
public opinion and beat the War Party at their own propaganda game:
give
today.

I don't know? Willard's Neocon planned trip to Europe and to the Middle East was disasterous. He tanked in the polls and looked like a warmongering idiot. The Neocons control almost zero votes and not that much money. I don't think anyone who pushes war is going to win this election. The people are sick to death of the Middle East and war. If Romney wants any chance to win he has to sound more like a dove then a hawk. A businessman and a bean counter may not be the worst ticket. Maybe the businessman can figure out that endless wars are bad for business. Maybe the bean counter can figure out that the wars are bankrupting the country. I know Romney wants to get elected. He won't have a chance unless he sounds a lot more like a dove then a hawk.

Recommendations for Americans if either Obama or Romney are elected:
Stop using digital technology and get up to speed. Use a quill pen and water soluble, or even invisible ink, and train a carrier pigeon or two, to assist in communicating with friends and loved ones.

[…] is this: if Ryan is so committed to reducing the size and scale of American spending, why he is so committed to massively expensive wars? Tags: Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Republicans, US politics Previous Mursi shores up his […]

Nice analysis, Mr. R, as usual. Despite my whole-hearted backing of the dismantling of the welfare state, I too sensed a trace of odious Neo-connery to Paul Ryan at first glance/sight/sound. And his "foreign policy" rhetoric would have his made his literary hero, Ayn Rand, jump a Third World steamer back to Leningrad….

By the way, am I the only fan of Ayn Rand who, for the most part, cannot stand "fans" of Ayn Rand? These einf-up patriots who call her their "hero" et al? It is much, much more than just this "Go, Capitalism!" and "Down with the State!" mentality. My God, she has never had a proper media treatment……

So, Ryan tells his new staffers to read Atlas Shrugged, eh? I'm sure that'll sit well with the Christian base…he doesn't want his staffers reading of The Prince of Peace but, rather, the laborious rantings of a flaming atheist…nice. I, for one, will make sure any Christians I know are fully aware of her rabid hatred of religion.

So, Ryan tells his new staffers to read Atlas Shrugged, eh? I'm sure that'll sit well with the Christian base…he doesn't want his staffers reading of The Prince of Peace but, rather, the laborious rantings of a flaming atheist…nice. I, for one, will make sure any Christians I know are fully aware of her rabid hatred of religion.

So, Ryan tells his new staffers to read Atlas Shrugged, eh? I'm sure that'll sit well with the Christian base…he doesn't want his staffers reading of The Prince of Peace but, rather, the laborious rantings of a flaming atheist…nice. I, for one, will make sure any Christians I know are fully aware of her rabid hatred of religion.

Great column.
Justin says: "The Chicoms — to use right-wing Republican phraseology — are 'isolationists,' i.e. their foreign policy amounts to minding their own business and making as much money as possible."
That is quite obviously true, and the roots of China's foreign policy run very deep going back millennia, and this is reinforced by China's present need to raise its standard of living to Western levels, an enormous job permitting few distractions.
It is high time that we started seeing China this way, that is as "isolationist," interested in trade and business but little else – unless the U.S. Empire knocks them off that path, something most unwise.
So let us stop viewing China in terms of chubby millionaire "dissident" artists, who are of little importance to us as a nation. If you notice, almost all treatment of China, outside of the business press which has a far more realistic take on the Middle Kingdom, is based on "human rights" and is thus a setup for a future conflict justified by a "human rights" crusade.
Once again, China's main importance to us is its anti-interventionist foreign policy, the world's second largest economy without a single overseas military base. Let us welcome that – and try to mimic it. Imitating the bellicose European empires has brought us ever more grief.

Great column.
Justin says: "The Chicoms — to use right-wing Republican phraseology — are 'isolationists,' i.e. their foreign policy amounts to minding their own business and making as much money as possible."
That is quite obviously true, and the roots of China's foreign policy run very deep going back millennia, and this is reinforced by China's present need to raise its standard of living to Western levels, an enormous job permitting few distractions.
It is high time that we started seeing China this way, that is as "isolationist," interested in trade and business but little else – unless the U.S. Empire knocks them off that path, something most unwise.
So let us stop viewing China in terms of chubby millionaire "dissident" artists, who are of little importance to us as a nation. If you notice, almost all treatment of China, outside of the business press which has a far more realistic take on the Middle Kingdom, is based on "human rights" and is thus a setup for a future conflict justified by a "human rights" crusade.
Once again, China's main importance to us is its anti-interventionist foreign policy, the world's second largest economy without a single overseas military base. Let us welcome that – and try to mimic it. Imitating the bellicose European empires has brought us ever more grief.

Great column.
Justin says: "The Chicoms — to use right-wing Republican phraseology — are 'isolationists,' i.e. their foreign policy amounts to minding their own business and making as much money as possible."
That is quite obviously true, and the roots of China's foreign policy run very deep going back millennia, and this is reinforced by China's present need to raise its standard of living to Western levels, an enormous job permitting few distractions.
It is high time that we started seeing China this way, that is as "isolationist," interested in trade and business but little else – unless the U.S. Empire knocks them off that path, something most unwise.
So let us stop viewing China in terms of chubby millionaire "dissident" artists, who are of little importance to us as a nation. If you notice, almost all treatment of China, outside of the business press which has a far more realistic take on the Middle Kingdom, is based on "human rights" and is thus a setup for a future conflict justified by a "human rights" crusade.
Once again, China's main importance to us is its anti-interventionist foreign policy, the world's second largest economy without a single overseas military base. Let us welcome that – and try to mimic it. Imitating the bellicose European empires has brought us ever more grief.

Hi Anne,
I have been to China and I did not see any "slave labor" conditions. In fact the main problem that employers have in eastern China is finding qualified workers willing to work at the wages they can pay. Workers are getting increasingly fussy as the increase in wages is 17% annually for the past 5 or 10 years, with inflation at 4% or lower. Migrant workers coming to the cities do not have the best conditions and many live in dormitories – BUT you will find no vast slums as in other developing countries like India or Colombia as examples, or in the UK or US when we were industrializing. Better dormitories than slums.
China is now undergoing a vast and rapid urbanization with about 40 – 50% of the population now in cities, with a goal of Labor laws are gradually getting stricter and minimum wages climbing. The population is 100% literate. Compare all that to India which was slightly richer than China in 1949 at the time of liberation. Personal liberties are also great with gay pride parades in the larger cities. Women "hold up half the sky," as Mao said. Political liberties are not very well developed and little is allowed outside the one party – of course we can do everything as long as it is permitted in the "two" parties. ;-)
But all that is not relevant to us – what is relevant to us is China's foreign policy which is quite good now. Let us not set them on a different course for the sake of "human rights." Let's instead serve as a model by cleaning up our own human rights abuses, starting with termination of the PATRIOT act, NDAA and the "war on drugs" which drives up our prison population to insane levels.

You are correct. I said that somewhat tongue in cheek because so many on the Christian Right ( at least the ones I know) would regard any self-proclaimed atheist as flaming/radical/extreme/hater. And, for the most part, couldn''t tell you who John Galt is to save their lives. And, and, will line up to support ANYONE who opposes Obama.

Isn't it "moral relativism" to argue that we can drone other countries and they can't drone us? Or that bombing funerals is or is not terrorism depending on whether it was us? I already disliked Ryan's policies before reading this, but now I also understand just how stupid he is! I'm dumbfounded.

What's even scarier is that most people who consider themselves either "fans" of Ayn Rand, or, like Ryan, obviously have never read her work (or have only read the "Cliff Notes" versions) both ignore the obvious flaws in her Objectivist philosophy or put words in her mouth that she never uttered in print. Either way, Rand herself would probably cringe at thought of an endorsement from the likes of Ryan and the Beltwaytarians who support him.

You're right; there it is, in full living color, with words straight from the ass's mouth. The sad thing is that this won't change the minds of any of those deluded souls who choose (yes, that IS the appropriate word here) to believe that Ryan is "libertarian" in spite of this clear evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, the word "libertarian," like the word "freedom" and so many other words in the English language, has become so perverted and distorted, co-opted by creatures like Ryan (and worse) for their own perverse partisan political ends, that it is in danger of being rendered meaningless.

How do poor China and Russia possibly get by without our "leadership", or do the Neo-CON clowns think they are following us somehow? That will be proven when those countries simply buy the two party system and pretend there is some contest between them every few years, while they go on with the same policies. The people can vent their frustrations by throwing out the party "in charge" every few years, only to find out they have the same creatures in charge. Brilliant.

Ryan says: “Now, if you believe these rights are universal human rights, then that clearly forms the basis of your views on foreign policy. It leads you to reject moral relativism. It causes you to recoil at the idea of persistent moral indifference toward any nation that stifles and denies liberty, no matter how friendly and accommodating its rulers are to American interests.” Tell that to the Palestinians whose oppressors, the Israelis, are the largest recipients of America's foreign aid.

Actually, Paul Ryan has disavowed his fandom of Ayn Rand, now claiming that hers is an atheist philosophy, and babbling on about how people need to be led by a divine being.
Wonderful… Not only a warmongering neocon, but a religious one to boot. The worst of everything. No peace; no fiscal responsibility, and no social liberties.

Then don't let them get away with hijacking it. Renounce them wherever you see them identify themselves as libertarians. Call them lie-bertarians.
Like those poseurs at Cato, who claim that Paul Ryan "gets the free market", those hilariously and instantaneously proving that they themselves don't even "get it".

Reading Atlas Shrugged, is as good a test as any that someone can stick to a boring task for a very long time. Atlas Shrugged is overly long and sophmoric – full of straw men (isn't one of the bureaucrats named "Wesley Mooch"; while all of the plundering billionaires are such noble creatures ?)- give me a break! Better that Ryan's new help prove themselves by reading War and Peace – it is slightly longer and evermore so much deeper. Plus Ayn Rand, herself was such an heroic person – publically scorning big government while latching on to Medicare when she got sick. List me as a libertarian who thinks Ayn Rand was a crock.

So if you broke your leg you wouldn't want any morphine? How many lives should be destroyed? How many billions should be spent over naturally growing plants that you don't wish to partake of? Just what type of a "war" would you like?
I think we need a new commercial; "Smoke a bowl, because there is your brain on Prozac".

Not a fan of Rand but .."aristocracy of pull", all these would be Randians and would be Rand critics need to read what she thought of that, it's enlightening. What is the Military Industrial Complex? Aristocracy of pull. What is blackwater now Xe now …? Aristocracy of pull. What is at this points large swaths of this corporatist pseudo-free market system?

Though I think Rothbard initially split with her over the issue of his wife being, how shall we say this .. religious. Having a religious spouse is just a surrender to complete irrationality obviously.

So the economist joins the greed-ridden elitist to try and buy their way to the White House- What a team! Ryan will need to get fitted for his Magic Mormon Underwear soon! These sacred undergarments harness the power of the Almighty to cough up enough cash for their crusade to the highest seats in the land. See for yourself how these miracles are performed and how money plays its role in politics at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-r…

Paul Ryan means nothing, is nothing, with respect to foreign policy other than he is a "go along to get along"… It really doesn't matter what his actual views are–as he was not picked for 'foreign policy' reasons in the first place…and he's essentially equivalent to "foreign policy" as anyone else Romney would have realistically picked. I doubt Ryan's foreign policy views materially differ from Mr. Obama's–but I know virtually nothing of the man, and it doesn't really matter anyway… This is just another indication this election cycle will be little about, be virtually detached from, a foreign policy discussion… This was probably a good pick on Romney's part strategically–even though he's most likely doomed.

Paul Ryan means nothing, is nothing, with respect to foreign policy other than he is a "go along to get along"… It really doesn't matter what his actual views are–as he was not picked for 'foreign policy' reasons in the first place…and he's essentially equivalent to "foreign policy" as anyone else Romney would have realistically picked. I doubt Ryan's foreign policy views materially differ from Mr. Obama's–but I know virtually nothing of the man, and it doesn't really matter anyway… This is just another indication this election cycle will be little about, be virtually detached from, a foreign policy discussion… This was probably a good pick on Romney's part strategically–even though he's most likely doomed.

Even so, I think this could appropriately be the Romney/Ryan theme song on the campaign trail:

Paul Ryan means nothing, is nothing, with respect to foreign policy other than he is a "go along to get along"… It really doesn't matter what his actual views are–as he was not picked for 'foreign policy' reasons in the first place…and he's essentially equivalent to "foreign policy" as anyone else Romney would have realistically picked. I doubt Ryan's foreign policy views materially differ from Mr. Obama's–but I know virtually nothing of the man, and it doesn't really matter anyway… This is just another indication this election cycle will be little about, be virtually detached from, a foreign policy discussion… This was probably a good pick on Romney's part strategically–even though he's most likely doomed.

Even so, I think this could appropriately be the Romney/Ryan theme song on the campaign trail:

Wasn't the whole point of Romney's campaign that he was the guy who could turn the economy around? Then why does he need a running mate who can turn the economy around?

Romney's economic acumen is his supposed strength. A candidate wants a running mate to shore up where he appears weak right? So the GOP's "big name" on economics in the congress gets tapped for the VP slot? Maybe it's just me, but this sure makes it look like Romney might not have the handle on economic recovery that he has been portraying. With this pick, I can't help but question what Romney brings to the ticket.

Wasn't the whole point of Romney's campaign that he was the guy who could turn the economy around? Then why does he need a running mate who can turn the economy around?

Romney's economic acumen is his supposed strength. A candidate wants a running mate to shore up where he appears weak right? So the GOP's "big name" on economics in the congress gets tapped for the VP slot? Maybe it's just me, but this sure makes it look like Romney might not have the handle on economic recovery that he has been portraying. With this pick, I can't help but question what Romney brings to the ticket.

I watched some of the lefty clowns on MSNBC last night. O'Donnell, Maddow, et al are licking their chops and slapping each others backs over Romney's pick of Ryan. It appears to them that the election is now over and Obama will sail to a huge win. Lawrence even played a radio quote from right-wing Laura Ingrahm in which she said that Romney is losing. If this is true, then the Repubs have no one to blame but themselves.

They continue to push the Empire and, my favorite, American Exceptionalism. I hope that the American people are finally sick unto death of this drivel. The truth is that we are an empire in steep decline as eventually happens to all empires. The Repubs will try to avoid talking about the empire abroad in the campaign as it has become an albatross around their necks. Neither party is living in the reality of diminishing fossil fuels, overpopulation, and entropy. I would recommend to Ryan that he read Kunstler's recent 'Too Much Magic" instead of the overblown comic book "Atlas Shrugged."

Note that I put "irrational", as here, is in quotes. I am Catholic myself, but I do get tired of the Jesus freaks who use religion as an excuse (for war) or mental cop-out (for thinking) Rand felt that when someone surrenders Reason to hoping that a religious force will save the day was to give oneself over to whims, irrationality, mysticism…and on this score, I believe she is right.

2. Atlas Shrugged is a great work, and "overly long" to those with short attention spans or who like their literature peppered with school-boy four letter words and big fonts. Atlas is long—and one of the most fast-paced plots there is. Most who like this work finish it immediately, and tend to wish there were more of it. I have read it 7,8 times. Love it more each time.

3. There are no plundering billionaires in the book. Excuse me, have you actually read it?

4. Oh, this Medicare canard once more. She did not "latch on" to Medicare when she got sick. She used it when her husband got sick….and by the way, was she not paying (huge) taxes to her government during this time? She was no welfare queen

I do not approve of human beings ruining their health or their minds on drugs. I think it is beneath human dignity.

I have no problem with "naturally growing plants". I have problems with them being processed to make drugs that kill the brain.

I don't want any "war" at all. I want people to not be so dumb, dazed and depressed that they turn to drugs for escape. I am also against prescription drugs for depressions and the rest.

But if there has to be a war, I am for eradicating all the vermin causing this mess.

As for the hospital uses, you know that we are not talking about medicinal reasons here, which are exceptional. (Morphine is not necessary for a broken leg, by the way). This is about general, widespread social use.

Anne,
Of course, I have read Atlas Shrugged – once – never saw the need to read it again, though. It is a book that appeals to young, rebellious minds sick of Mommy and Daddy telling them what to do. "I am free and I'll do damn well what I want to do". This is OK – all personalities need to break the parental grip to eventually become independent adults. But, then fully functional adults need to develop tolerance and even love for those others who are too weak or disabled to be fully independent. If a person sticks in the self-centered rebellious youth stage, they never truly become adults. From what I have read about Ayn Rand, she never grew up – she remained a tyrannical "brat" always dismissing members of her adoring circle for minor infractions (acting sort of like a hugely popular teenage girl).
If I want to read "morality lesson" stories, try Dickens or Tolstoy – they are more for the grown-up taste.

"Plundering billionaires" is a rather subjective term, yes? Though I might suggest Ragnar Danneskjold- the point is moot.

What is NOT is Rand's real life advocacy of the plunder-by that I mean rampant murder and flat out theft-of both American Indian lands and the entire Middle East through force. If you'd like, I'll dig up the tape of her vicious comments on both, though I find it nauseating.

Since Richard suggested "War and Peace" as an alternate, your flailing smear only bolsters the point. Unless you really think that Tolstoy wrote in "school-boy four letter words and big fonts." In which case, you have simply divorced yourself from reality, rather typically of those who adhere to Hegelian philosophical roots(though they rarely are well read enough to grasp the fact.)

On the subject of school-boys one might be tempted to ask, which work contained a totally gratuitous, graphic, rape? I have books with similar, though far less violent, prurient imagery that I have read multiple times as well-I wonder if it is for the same purpose?

"Plundering billionaires" is a rather subjective term, yes? Though I might suggest Ragnar Danneskjold- the point is moot.

What is NOT is Rand's real life advocacy of the plunder-by that I mean rampant murder and flat out theft-of both American Indian lands and the entire Middle East through force. If you'd like, I'll dig up the tape of her vicious comments on both, though I find it nauseating.

Since Richard suggested "War and Peace" as an alternate, your flailing smear only bolsters the point. Unless you really think that Tolstoy wrote in "school-boy four letter words and big fonts." In which case, you have simply divorced yourself from reality, rather typically of those who adhere to Hegelian philosophical roots(though they rarely are well read enough to grasp the fact.)

On the subject of school-boys one might be tempted to ask, which work contained a totally gratuitous, graphic, rape? I have books with similar, though far less violent, prurient imagery that I have read multiple times as well-I wonder if it is for the same purpose?

Both Romney and Obama's biggest donor is Goldman Sachs. They both work for the same people. Paul Ryan voted in favor of Obama's bad ideas in TARP, NDAA, SOPA, and warrantless wiretapping. He also voted in favor of ceding the power of the Senate to vet czars to Obama: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/oba…

Romney and Ryan will simply finish what Obama started in ceding U.S. sovereignty and freedoms to the U.N.

Face reality about Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand's antiwar credentials are not there. While the warmongering Israel of today is clearly not the Israel of Ayn's time — Bibi Netanyahu is no Golda Meir — from Ayn's comments at the time she was certainly more like Bibi, prowar and zealot-for-Israel. And not only because of her Jewish heritage. She thought of the Palestinians as savages and barely human, wanting to see them all expelled. Not unlike Paul Ryan.

I don't say Atlas Shrugged is a great work of literature. And Ayn like the rest of us certainly had her faults. But I too don't believe you read the whole book. You must have skimmed the speechs and soliloquies (especially "John Gault Speaking" at the end), and that was the true uniqueness of the book. I also found the book masterfully suspenseful, but that might have been just me. Like listening to a speech of Ron Paul, the original thought and sincerity of the ideas shines through everything else, for all but those cravenly "axe grinding" self-absorbed individuals.

Then stop worrying about what some other people may or may not do. Maybe you could try leading by example, teaching your own children, rather than being a dictator? And before you tell me that you will have to pay healthcare costs because of their habits, let me tell you that drug users and alcohol users, even fat people, were here long before socialized medicine. It was people who took on their "burden", not them who put it on us.

Anne: you said 'I am also against rx drugs for depression and the rest.' Obviously you have never suffered from debilitating depression or anxiety. People in this state will not respond to talk therapy alone. Their only hope is often AD's which have alleviated the suffering of millions (and probably has saved billions by preventing hospitalizations). For someone to say that they don't believe in AD's is equilavent to saying they believe the Earth is flat.

"But if there has to be a war, I am for eradicating all the vermin causing this mess.

It's "the war" that's causing "the mess". The problems of Prohibition are worse than those of addiction. And note, even with Prohibition there's still addiction…in fact those in charge of "The War" need addicts to feed their pogrom.

[…] The Romney campaign is making a major effort to reach out to the Tea Party, grassroots conservative activists, and Ron Paul’s libertarian supporters. They’ve not only invited Rand Paul to speak at the Tampa convention, they’ve also scheduled a “Tribute to Ron Paul” video to be shown to the delegates. However, these are mere crumbs: the video is not likely to highlight Paul’s more interesting positions, such as his vociferous opposition to the American empire and its endless wars. No, the real cake, complete with quasi-“libertarian” frosting, is Paul Ryan, whose addition to the ticket opens up the prospect of having Ayn Rand, the late novelist and philosopher of “Objectivism,” become a campaign issue. I can’t wait for someone to accuse the Republicans of endorsing “terrorism” on the grounds that The Fountainhead, Rand’s best-selling 1943 novel, climaxes with the hero blowing up a home for mentally challenged orphans. Oh wait. . . That some “libertarians” are ready, willing, and able to swallow this guff, I have no doubt. They claim Ryan “gets the free market.” Well, whoop-de-doo! So does the Chinese Communist party, these days. However, he doesn’t really “get it” at all, not even to the extent that the heirs of Deng Xiaoping do, because he thinks we can still have an overseas empire and a “limited” government, with low taxes and “free” enterprise. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/08/12/the-marketing-of-paul-ryan/ […]

"It is a book that appeals to young, rebellious minds sick of Mommy and Daddy telling them what to do. "I am free and I'll do damn well what I want to do". This is OK – all personalities need to break the parental grip to eventually become independent adults. But, then fully functional adults need to develop tolerance and even love for those others who are too weak or disabled to be fully independent."

The ass, a beast of burden, always having to carry such a heavy load. Atlas Shrugged, maybe you should too? I can imagine the world gets heavy after awhile.

I don't know whether you mean me or Mike, but speaking for myself, I really did read the whole thing (Atlas Shrugged) It just didn't stick with me much. Likewise, I am sure that I may have watched several whole episodes of Jersey Shore in the past, but damned if I could carry on a intelligent, detailed conversation regarding what went on in any particular episode.
Best I could do is say, "They went to a club, Snooky dressed like a tramp, someone got drunk and stupid". Likewise with Atlas Shrugged, "Great Individualist creates the whole Earth with his bare hands, miserable government weasels try to steal it, Great Individualist goes away in a huff, government weasels get on their knees, but to no avail". Did I miss anything important?

"It is doubtful the Russians or the Chinese have the either the desire or the capacity to “lead the world” — a grandiose concept that seems to have originated with those who believe civilization would literally go to pieces without the beneficent direction of the right Anglo-Saxon aristocrats. "

The above quote is where you are wrong. Now read the below again:

"“Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud—that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee.”

"It is doubtful the Russians or the Chinese have the either the desire or the capacity to “lead the world” — a grandiose concept that seems to have originated with those who believe civilization would literally go to pieces without the beneficent direction of the right Anglo-Saxon aristocrats. "

The above quote is where you are wrong. Now read the below again:

"“Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud—that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee.”

"From what I have read about Ayn Rand, she never grew up – she remained a tyrannical "brat" always dismissing members of her adoring circle for minor infractions (acting sort of like a hugely popular teenage girl). "

Never expect the best, always settle for less. Give up your principles an ideals for the lesser. Look around you, that is what you have, the lesser rising to the top to rule you all. Maybe that is why you shouldn't settle or compromise your principles of freedom and liberty for all.

[…] his secret support of Bernanke’s inflationism makes him a proponent of sound money, and how recreating the British Empire under American leadership shows how the United States is an exceptional […]

Wow! Raimondo must be a college graduate. Look at ll the big words he us using. Interesting how he tears apart Ryan piece by piece, word for word. If so called reporters had done the same for bumbling Biden and the promise them anything to get re-elected president, they wouldn't have made it to the White House in the first place. There's not much point in running down the growing laundry list of screw ups the current administration has done/ is doing. It will be refreshing to get anyone in control other than them.

[…] It seems that you have incorrectly labelled Romney’s VP runner Paul Ryan as a libertarian. I think the Republican Party propaganda is working on you, David. Ron Paul has been cast down the Orwellian memory hole while Paul Ryan has taken his spot as the Tea-Party candidate that favours gold. Fortunately, mainstream media no longer holds a monopoly on opinion molding. […]

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].